Cortney Shegerian

Original Complaint – Brandi Cochran Case

March 31, 2016

Carney R. Shegerian, Esq., State Bar No. 150461
CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
Anthony Nguyen, Esq., State Bar No. 259154
ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
225 Arizona Avenue, Suite 400
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone Number: (310) 860‑0770
Facsimile Number: (310) 860‑0771
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
BRANDI COCHRAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
BRANDI COCHRAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CBS CORPORATION, CBS TELEVISION NETWORK, FREMANTLEMEDIA LIMITED, FREMANTLEMEDIA NORTH AMERICA, THE PRICE IS RIGHT PRODUCTIONS, INC., RTL GROUP, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.:
PLAINTIFF BRANDI COCHRAN’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BASED ON:
(1) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF PREGNANCY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(2) HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF PREGNANCY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(3) RETALIATION FOR COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF PREGNANCY;
(4) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX/PREGNANCY IN VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT;
(5) HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF SEX/PREGNANCY IN VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT;
(6) RETALIATION FOR COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF SEX/PREGNANCY IN VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT;
(7) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(8) HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(9) RETALIATION FOR COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(10) DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(11) HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF GENDER IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(12) RETALIATION FOR COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT ON THE BASIS OF GENDER IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
(13) DISCRIMINATORY TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF CFRA;
(14) HARASSING TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF CFRA;
(15) RETALIATORY TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF CFRA;
(16) PARAMOUR SEXUAL HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION, AND RETALIATION;
(17) WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION);
(18) BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT AND/OR ORAL CONTRACT NOT TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE;
(19) NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, AND SUPERVISION;
(20) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
(21) MISAPPROPRIATION OF IMAGE/LIKENESS;
(22) VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY;
(23) FRAUD;
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PARTIES 1
VENUE 2
INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS 3
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy (FEHA)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 8
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Harassment on the Basis of Pregnancy (FEHA)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 9
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation for Complaints of Discrimination and Harassment on the Basis of Pregnancy (FEHA)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 10
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination on the Basis of Sex/Pregnancy (Civil Code §§ 51, 51.9)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 11
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Harassment on the Basis of Sex/Pregnancy (Civil Code §§ 51, 51.9)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 15
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation for Complaints of Harassment on the Basis of Sex/Pregnancy (Civil Code §§ 51, 51.9)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 19
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Violation of FEHA—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 20
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Harassment on the Basis of Disability in Violation of FEHA—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 21
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation for Complaints of Discrimination and Harassment on the Basis of Disability in Violation of FEHA—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 23
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discrimination on the Basis of Gender (Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971) 400 U.S. 542, 543)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 24
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Harassment on the Basis of Gender (Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971) 400 U.S. 542, 543)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 26
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliation for Complaints of Discrimination and Harassment on the Basis of Gender (Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971) 400 U.S. 542, 543)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 27
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Discriminatory Termination of Employment in Violation of CFRA (Government Code § 12945.2)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 29
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Harassing Termination of Employment in Violation of CFRA (Government Code § 12945.2)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 30
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Retaliatory Termination of Employment in Violation of CFRA (Government Code § 12945.2)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 31
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Paramour Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 32
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Wrongful Termination of Employment and Demotion in Violation of Public Policy on the Basis of Pregnancy Discrimination (California Constitution, Article I, § 8)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 34
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Implied-in-Fact and/or Oral Contract Not to Terminate Employment Without Good Cause—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 35
NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 36
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Against All Defendants) 37
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Misappropriation of Image/Likeness (Lugosi v. Universal Pictures (1979) 25 Cal.3d 813)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 38
TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of Right to Privacy (Civil Code § 3344)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 39
TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud (Civil Code § 1710)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL) 41
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Lugosi v. Universal Pictures (1979) 25 Cal.3d 813 38
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971) 400 U.S. 542 24, 26, 27
Statutes
Civil Code § 51 2, 11, 15, 19
Civil Code § 1710 41
Civil Code § 3344 39
Government Code §§ 12900-12996 passim
Government Code § 12945.2 29, 30, 31
Plaintiff, Brandi Cochran, alleges:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Brandi Cochran (“plaintiff” or “Cochran”), is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
2. Defendant CBS Corporation (“defendant” or “CBS”) is, and at all times men­tioned in this Complaint was, authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government and authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Los Angeles. CBS’s place of business, where the following causes of action took place, was and is in the County of Los Angeles.
3. Defendant CBS Television Network (“defendant” or “CBS TV”) is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government and authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Los Angeles. CBS TV’s place of business, where the following causes of action took place, was and is in the County of Los Angeles.
4. Defendant FremantleMedia Limited (“defendant” or “Fremantle Ltd.”) is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government and authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Los Angeles. Fremantle Ltd.’s principal place of business was and is at 1 Stephen Street, London, England.
5. Defendant FremantleMedia North America (“defendant” or “Fremantle N.A.”) is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government and authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Los Angeles. Fremantle N.A.’s place of business, where the following causes of action took place, was and is in the County of Los Angeles, at 4000 West Alameda Avenue, Third Floor, Burbank, California 91505.
6. Defendant The Price Is Right Productions, Inc. (“defendant” or “The Price Is Right”) is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government and authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Los Angeles. The Price Is Right’s place of business, where the following causes of action took place, was and is in the County of Los Angeles.
7. Defendant RTL Group (“defendant” or “RTL”) is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, authorized to operate by the State of California and the United States government and authorized and qualified to do business in the County of Los Angeles. RTL’s place of business, where the following causes of action took place, was and is in the County of Los Angeles.
8. Defendants Does 1 through 100 are sued under fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the defendants sued under fictitious names is in some manner respon­sible for the wrongs and damages alleged below, in so acting was functioning as the agent, servant, partner, and employee of the co-defendants, and in taking the actions men­tioned below was acting within the course and scope of his or her authority as such agent, servant, partner, and employee, with the permission and consent of the co-defendants.
9. Defendants both directly and indirectly employed plaintiff Cochran, as defined under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) at Government Code section 12926(d). In addition, defendants compelled, coerced, aided, and abetted the discrimina­tion, which is prohibited under California Government Code section 12940(i). Finally, at all relevant times mentioned herein, all defendants acted as agents of all other defendants in committing the acts alleged herein.
VENUE
10. Venue is proper in this court, as the civil rights violations arose under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, under California Government Code section 12965(b). This sec­tion provides, “The superior courts of the State of California shall have jurisdiction of those actions, and the aggrieved person may file in these courts. An action may be brought in any county in the state in which the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed. . . .”
INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
11. Plaintiff Cochran was employed by defendants from July of 2002 through February 23, 2010, as a TV game show model. After she announced her pregnancy in late 2008, defendants discriminated against, harassed, and retaliated against Cochran, in­cluding making remarks about her pregnancy, her appearance, her weight, and her eating habits; removing her from the show’s web site; and not allowing her to return to work after her pregnancy leave. After refusing to schedule her to work again for months, defendants terminated her employment.
12. Plaintiff Cochran observed defendants harass two other models and terminate one’s employment because of her pregnancy. Those employees were subjected to harassing, demeaning, and sexist comments and to differential treatment because of their pregnancies. For example, one director, on learning of a model’s pregnancy, said, “I thought so. I said either she got her tits done or she’s pregnant.”
13. When Cochran got pregnant in early 2007, she did not tell defendants or any of her co-workers because she was afraid of being fired. She suffered severe stress, and that pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. Cochran had delayed trying to conceive from early 2005 through early 2006 out of fear for her job. Cochran had seen another model discharged because of her pregnancy in December of 2006.
14. In mid-December of 2008, Cochran told defendants’ producer Kathy Greco that she was pregnant. Greco said that she had suspected it because Cochran’s bust was very large. When she learned of Cochran’s previous miscarriage, Greco called it “nature’s way of getting rid of a bad baby.” Some months later, Greco attended Cochran’s baby shower, at which Cochran talked about her hospitalized daughter and acknowledged and thanked each of the guests; Greco commented, “Well, it’s the most informative shower I’ve ever been to.”
15. After learning of Cochran’s pregnancy, defendants’ executive producer Mike Richards did not talk to her as frequently as before. Unlike other co-workers, he did not congratulate her on being pregnant.
16. One of defendants’ models asked Richards if she would get more work because Cochran was pregnant and would be taking maternity leave. Richards answered, “You’re absolutely right. You’ll work more.” The model took it to mean that she would work more even before Cochran’s leave. The same model told Cochran that Richards had said to her, “Go figure! I fire five girls . . . what are the odds?” Cochran understood this comment to mean that Richards would have selected her for layoff if he had known that she was going to get pregnant.
17. Cochran was pressured to announce her pregnancy on the air because her co-workers kept telling her that she was showing. One co-worker told others that Cochran was losing her waist; another commented that her “boobs were huge.”
18. When the host of the show made the public announcement of her pregnancy on the air, Cochran revealed that she was carrying twins. Richards put his face in his hands. He asked her twice, in an annoyed tone, “Twins? Are you serious? . . . You’re serious?” After that, Cochran was booked to work less often and was repeatedly taken out of acts she would have appeared in before. Previously, she worked more than most of the other models; after she announced her pregnancy, she was given less work.
19. In January of 2009, before she announced her pregnancy publicly, Cochran was booked to work one week, then was asked to work a different week instead to fill in for another model. That had never happened to her before. She agreed to take the addition­al week’s work, but refused to give up the first week because she had forgone another paid appearance to work the original week. Greco was unhappy about having Cochran work both weeks.
20. As an executive producer, Richards decided that the models’ skirts should be shorter and said that he liked the models to look as if they were going out on a date. At his suggestion, models wore bikinis on the show more frequently.
21. During Cochran’s pregnancy, defendants’ employees made frequent comments on her weight gain. The stage manager joked about her breaking things if she stood on them and told her, “You’re packing a lot of extra weight.” On one occasion, he told both Cochran and another model that the shirt Cochran was wearing made her look big and that the wardrobe department should not have chosen it for her. He once said, “Wide load coming through,” when he saw her.
22. One day, when plaintiff Cochran was on a meal break, Greco and another producer asked if chips were on her diet. Greco commented that another model needed to go to rehab because of her eating. She also asked Cochran, “Do you ever stop?”
23. When plaintiff was on an exercise bike that was to be a prize on the game show, Greco asked, “Should you be doing that? . . . Do you really want to be seen doing that? You know . . . like you are?” Cochran responded, “I’m OK with it; are you?” Greco wanted to replace Cochran on the exercise bike, but the other models were wearing swimsuits, so she told Cochran to stand beside the bike, rather than sit on it.
24. One co-worker kept asking Cochran if she were tired, although Cochran was not complaining of feeling tired.
25. Cochran was not scheduled to work at all in February of 2009. Another model sent her a text message stating, “I can’t believe they’re doing this to you.”
26. Cochran was scheduled to appear on a theme episode of the game show in March of 2009. The theme show was later rescheduled to April, and the staff member who booked models asked Cochran if she could still do the show, as April was closer to her due date. Cochran confirmed that she would do the show and asked if defendants wanted her to work the whole day, as the show tapes two episodes a day. She was told to show up for only the theme episode, although she told the model booker that her due date was not until June 12 and that she was available and happy to work before then.
27. On February 6, 2009, Cochran’s son died in utero from a heart defect. Her doc­tors told her that she could carry her twins to term and deliver them both. However, shortly after she talked to the booker about the theme show and expressed that she wanted to work, her water broke, and her twins were delivered three months premature by emergency Cæsarean section. Cochran was put on bed rest for three weeks, and she went on disability leave for after-effects of the C-section and for postpartum depression and anxiety. She informed defendants by e‑mail that she had to cancel her work in March and that she was staying in the hospital until the babies were born.
28. While Cochran’s daughter was still in the hospital, another model from the show visited her and said that photographs for the new season had been taken in Cochran’s absence.
29. Cochran’s daughter developed pulmonary problems after her birth and was on a ventilator for three weeks. She remained in the hospital for more than three months. When she was released, on July 3, 2009, she was still on oxygen and had two monitors. Cochran was extremely stressed from caring for her daughter’s special needs and at the same time trying to lose her excess weight so that she could return to work.
30. After Cochran recovered from the effects of her pregnancy, defendants sent mixed messages that left her unsure of whether she would be allowed to return to work or not. Cochran sent Greco an e‑mail to let her know that she had lost her excess weight and was ready to work, but she was not booked to work again, although her employment with defendants had not been terminated.
31. Cochran was still invited to show parties and, like the rest of the employees, was sent a Christmas gift by the show. However, Cochran was removed from the show’s web site.
32. After telling Greco that she was able to work again, Cochran ran into her at another co-worker’s bridal shower. Greco told Cochran to “keep in touch.”
33. One of the other models told Cochran that Richards had said Cochran would be taking pictures with her in January. When Cochran attended the game show host’s holi­day cocktail party, Richards and other co-workers were nice to her, but did not mention her return to work.
34. After she discovered that she had been removed from the show’s web site, Cochran e‑mailed Greco about it, stating that she had never explicitly been told that she could come back to work, so she was wondering if she would be allowed to. She also asked for her mail, which defendants had been holding. Two days later, she received her mail, but got no answer to her question.
35. In December of 2009, Cochran requested her mail from the show and discov­ered that defendants had been holding her mail, including a hand-crocheted baby gift from a fan, for seven months. The employee who opened the mail told Cochran that he “didn’t know what you would want us to do,” so he kept the mail for seven months without notifying her. A page told Cochran, “You wouldn’t want to read your mail; it’s just a bunch of crazies.”
36. Cochran heard from another model that she had found out that her own mail was being discarded.
37. When Cochran checked the web site again, she saw a question from a viewer about when she would be on the game show again. The host responded that no one knew when she would be back and that she was happily home with her new baby; he said that there was “no news” about Cochran, but that she was loved and missed.
38. Around Christmas of 2009, Greco sent Cochran a text message saying that she would call her in the new year. On January 7, 2010, after not receiving any call from Greco, Cochran called Greco, who said she would have to talk to Richards. Cochran asked what she had to talk to Richards about, and Greco said she would call her back the next week. Greco said, “We don’t know what we’re doing yet . . . I’m sorry to keep putting you off like this.”
39. Greco did not call back the next week. On February 23, 2010, Cochran called Greco. During the phone conversation, Greco told Cochran that her employment with defendants was terminated.
40. During her employment with defendants, plaintiff Cochran was subjected to paramour sexual harassment by an executive producer who showed favoritism to another model with whom he had a personal relationship. The two flirted openly, spent increas­ing amounts of time together outside work, and e‑mailed and text-messaged each other often. Other employees commented on their apparent attraction. That model began to receive favorable treatment; she had her skirt lengths adjusted after she complained that they were too long, and she was sometimes booked as a fourth model when the show usually used only three models at a time. The executive producer said a number of times that he had nothing to do with the models’ schedules, but the model to whom he admit­ted being attracted got more work than she had received previously. When that model took two months off recently because she had gotten a job on another TV show, another model asked if the executive producer planned to replace her, and he said he would not.
41. Defendants denied plaintiff Cochran and the other models meal breaks, rest breaks, and overtime.
42. Defendants often failed to pay models royalties for their appearances in reruns of defendants’ game show; the models had to contact defendants to receive payment.
43. While she was employed by defendants, Cochran performed in skits on the show, appearing in costume as various characters. This and the grand nature of the mod­els’ involvement on the show could entitle her to be considered a principal and therefore to be paid at a higher rate, but she continued to be paid at the five-and-under rate.
44. In addition, defendants used Cochran’s image on DVDs, video games, cell phone applications, and a DirecTV advertisement, without ever compensating her for it.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy (FEHA)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
45. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 44 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
46. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code sections 12900-12996, was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. These statutes require defendants to refrain from discriminating against any employee on the basis of pregnancy, among other things. Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative requirements as to all named defendants.
47. Defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment in violation of FEHA’s prohibi­tion against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Had plaintiff not been pregnant, she would have retained her job for a substantially longer time and obtained benefits that other employees who were not pregnant did, in fact, receive.
48. When plaintiff attempted to return from maternity leave, defendants terminated her employment without giving her a legitimate reason.
49. As a proximate result of defendants’ discrimination against her and wrongful termination of her employment in violation of FEHA, plaintiff has suffered and contin­ues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
50. Defendants’ discrimination was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Harassment on the Basis of Pregnancy (FEHA)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
51. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 50 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
52. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code sections 12900-12996, was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. These statutes re­quire defendants to refrain from harassing any employee on the basis of pregnancy, among other things. Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative requirements as to all named defendants.
53. Defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment in violation of FEHA’s prohibi­tion against harassment on the basis of pregnancy. Had plaintiff not been pregnant, she would have retained her job for a substantially longer time and obtained benefits that other employees who were not pregnant did, in fact, receive.
54. When plaintiff attempted to return from maternity leave, defendants terminated her employment without giving her a reason.
55. Plaintiff Cochran complained about such differential treatment prior to her last day of employment with defendants. Instead of either addressing or rectifying the situation, defendants retaliated against her by shunning her in business activities from the day her complaint became known through her last day of employment.
56. As a proximate result of defendants’ harassment of her and wrongful termina­tion of her employment in violation of FEHA, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
57. Defendants’ harassment was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive man­ner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation for Complaints of Discrimination and Harassment on the Basis of Pregnancy (FEHA)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
58. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 57 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
59. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code sections 12900-12996, was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. These statutes require defen­dants to refrain from retaliating against any employee on the basis of preg­nancy, among other things. Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative requirements as to all named defendants.
60. Defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment in violation of FEHA’s prohibi­tion against retaliation on the basis of pregnancy. Had plaintiff not been pregnant, she would have retained her job for a substantially longer time and obtained benefits that other employees who were not pregnant did, in fact, receive.
61. When plaintiff attempted to return from maternity leave, defendants terminated her employment without giving her a reason.
62. Plaintiff Cochran complained about such differential treatment prior to her last day of employment with defendants. Instead of either addressing or rectifying the situa­tion, defendants retaliated against her by shunning her in business activities from the day her complaint became known through her last day of employment.
63. As a proximate result of defendants’ retaliation against her and wrongful termi­nation of her employment in violation of FEHA, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
64. Defendants’ retaliation was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive man­ner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Discrimination on the Basis of Sex/Pregnancy (Civil Code §§ 51, 51.9)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
65. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 64 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
66. As plaintiff’s employers, defendants had a business relationship with plaintiff.
67. During plaintiff’s employment with defendants, defendants engaged in actions that constituted discrimination against plaintiff because of her pregnancy. This conduct was unwelcome to plaintiff.
68. The discriminatory acts that plaintiff Cochran suffered included the following:
a. After learning of Cochran’s pregnancy, defendants’ executive producer Richards did not talk to her as frequently as before. He was the only one of her co-workers who did not congratulate her on being pregnant.
b. During her pregnancy, a number of co-workers commented on Cochran’s bust size, her weight gain, and her eating habits. One co-worker told others that Cochran was losing her waist; another commented that her “boobs were huge.”
c. Defendants’ stage manager joked that Cochran might break things if she stood on them and told her, “You’re packing a lot of extra weight.” On one occasion, he told both Cochran and another model that the shirt Cochran was wearing made her look big and that the wardrobe department should not have chosen it for her. He once said, “Wide load coming through,” when he saw her.
d. One day, when plaintiff Cochran was on a meal break, Greco and another producer asked if chips were on her diet. Greco commented that another model needed to go to rehab because of her eating and asked Cochran, “Do you ever stop?”
e. When plaintiff was on an exercise bike that was to be a prize on the game show, Greco asked, “Should you be doing that? . . . Do you really want to be seen doing that? Ya know . . . Like you are?” Cochran responded, “I’m OK with it; are you?” Greco wanted to replace Cochran on the exercise bike, but the other models were wearing swimsuits, so she told Cochran to stand beside the bike, rather than sit on it.
f. One co-worker kept asking Cochran if she were tired, although Cochran was not complaining of feeling tired.
g. Defendants did not schedule Cochran to work at all in February of 2009. Another model sent her a text message stating, “I can’t believe they’re doing this to you.”
h. In February of 2009, Cochran was scheduled to work one “token” week in March. At the same time, defendants hired another model who worked in the same spot as Cochran.
i. Cochran was scheduled to appear on a theme episode of the game show in March of 2009. The theme show was later rescheduled to April, and the staff member who booked models asked Cochran if she could still do the show, as April was closer to her due date. Cochran confirmed that she would do the show and asked if defendants wanted her to work the whole day, as the show tapes two episodes a day. She was told to show up for only the theme episode, although she told the model booker that her due date was not until June 12 and that she was available and happy to work before then.
j. While Cochran’s baby, who was born three months prematurely, was in the hospital, another model from the show visited her and said that photographs for the show had been taken in Cochran’s absence. The year before, two models who had had babies were included in the photo sessions.
k. After Cochran recovered from the effects of her pregnancy, defendants sent mixed messages that left her unsure of whether she would be allowed to return to work or not. Cochran sent Greco an e‑mail to let her know that she had lost her excess weight and was ready to work, but she was not booked to work again, although she believed that her employment with defendants had not been terminated because co-workers told her that Greco referred to the models as “the six of you,” including Cochran, and because she was still invited to show parties and, like the rest of the employees, was sent a Christmas gift by the show. Employees who had been fired never got invitations or gifts. However, Cochran was removed from the show’s web site.
l. After telling Greco that she was able to work again, Cochran ran into her at another co-worker’s bridal shower. Greco told Cochran to “keep in touch.” One of the other models told Cochran that Richards had said Cochran would be taking pictures with her in January. When Cochran attended the game show host’s holiday cocktail party, Richards and other co-workers were nice to her, but did not mention her return to work.
m. After she discovered that she had been removed from the show’s web site, Cochran e‑mailed Greco about it, stating that she had never explicitly been told that she could come back to work, so she was wondering if she would be allowed to. She also asked for her mail, which defendants had been holding. Two days later, she received her mail, but got no answer to her question. Cochran also discovered that defendants had been holding her mail, including a hand-crocheted baby gift from a fan, for seven months. The employee who opened the mail told Cochran that he “didn’t know what you would want,” so he kept the mail for seven months without notifying her. A page told Cochran, “You wouldn’t want to read your mail; it’s just a bunch of crazies.”
n. When Cochran checked the web site again, she saw a question from a viewer about when she would be on the game show again. The host responded that no one knew when she would be back and that she was happily home with her new baby; he said that there was “no news” about Cochran, but that she was loved and missed.
o. Around Christmas of 2009, Greco sent Cochran a text message saying that she would call her in the new year. On January 7, 2010, after not receiving any call from Greco, Cochran called Greco, who said she would have to talk to Richards. Cochran asked what she had to talk to Richards about, and Greco said she would call her back the next week. Greco said, “We don’t know what we’re doing yet . . . I’m sorry to keep putting you off like this.”
p. Greco did not call back the next week. On February 23, 2010, Cochran called Greco. During the phone conversation, Greco told Cochran that her employment with defendants was terminated.
69. All of these actions were done against plaintiff’s will and desire and over her protests. These acts of misconduct occurred from December of 2008, when plaintiff told Kathy Greco she was pregnant, until February 23, 2010, when plaintiff’s employment with defendants was terminated. Defendants took no action to prevent the discrimination against plaintiff Cochran.
70. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi­nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain damages, includ­ing losses of earnings and benefits, according to proof.
71. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi­nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emo­tional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
72. Defendants’ discrimination was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
73. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are known.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Harassment on the Basis of Sex/Pregnancy (Civil Code §§ 51, 51.9)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
74. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 73 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
75. As plaintiff’s employers, defendants had a business relationship with plaintiff.
76. During plaintiff’s employment with defendants, defendants engaged in actions that constituted harassment of plaintiff because of her pregnancy. This conduct was unwelcome to plaintiff.
77. The hostility and harassment that plaintiff Cochran suffered included the fol­lowing:
a. After learning of Cochran’s pregnancy, defendants’ executive producer Richards did not talk to her as frequently as before. He was the only one of her co-workers who did not congratulate her on being pregnant.
b. During her pregnancy, a number of co-workers commented on Cochran’s bust size, her weight gain, and her eating habits. One co-worker told others that Cochran was losing her waist; another commented that her “boobs were huge.”
c. Defendants’ stage manager joked that Cochran might break things if she stood on them and told her, “You’re packing a lot of extra weight.” On one occasion, he told both Cochran and another model that the shirt Cochran was wearing made her look big and that the wardrobe department should not have chosen it for her. He once said, “Wide load coming through,” when he saw her.
d. One day, when plaintiff Cochran was on a meal break, Greco and another producer asked if chips were on her diet. Greco commented that another model needed to go to rehab because of her eating and asked Cochran, “Do you ever stop?”
e. When plaintiff was on an exercise bike that was to be a prize on the game show, Greco asked, “Should you be doing that? . . . Do you really want to be seen doing that?” Cochran responded, “I’m OK with it; are you?” Greco wanted to replace Cochran on the exercise bike, but the other models were wearing swimsuits, so she told Cochran to stand beside the bike, rather than sit on it.
f. One co-worker kept asking Cochran if she were tired, although Cochran was not complaining of feeling tired.
g. Defendants did not schedule Cochran to work at all in February of 2009. Another model sent her a text message stating, “I can’t believe they’re doing this to you.”
h. In February of 2009, Cochran was scheduled to work one “token” week in March. At the same time, defendants hired another model who worked in the same spot as Cochran.
i. Cochran was scheduled to appear on a theme episode of the game show in March of 2009. The theme show was later rescheduled to April, and the staff member who booked models asked Cochran if she could still do the show, as April was closer to her due date. Cochran confirmed that she would do the show and asked if defendants wanted her to work the whole day, as the show tapes two episodes a day. She was told to show up for only the theme episode, although she told the model booker that her due date was not until June 12 and that she was available and happy to work before then.
j. While Cochran’s baby, who was born three months prematurely, was still in the hospital, another model from the show visited her and said that photographs for the new season had been taken in Cochran’s absence.
k. After Cochran recovered from the effects of her pregnancy, defendants sent mixed messages that left her unsure of whether she would be allowed to return to work or not. Cochran sent Greco an e‑mail to let her know that she had lost her excess weight and was ready to work, but she was not booked to work again, although she believed that her employment with defendants had not been terminated because co-workers told her that Greco referred to the models as “the six of you,” including Cochran, and because she was still invited to show parties and, like the rest of the employees, was sent a Christmas gift by the show. Employees who had been fired never got invitations or gifts. However, Cochran was removed from the show’s web site.
l. After telling Greco that she was able to work again, Cochran ran into her at another co-worker’s bridal shower. Greco told Cochran to “keep in touch.” One of the other models told Cochran that Richards had said Cochran would be taking pictures with her in January. When Cochran attended the game show host’s holiday cocktail party, Richards and other co-workers were nice to her, but did not mention her return to work.
m. After she discovered that she had been removed from the show’s web site, Cochran e‑mailed Greco about it, stating that she had never explicitly been told that she could come back to work, so she was wondering if she would be allowed to. She also asked for her mail, which defendants had been holding. Two days later, she received her mail, but got no answer to her question. Cochran also discovered that defendants had been holding her mail, including a hand-crocheted baby gift from a fan, for seven months. The employee who opened the mail told Cochran that he “didn’t know what you would want,” so he kept the mail for seven months without notifying her. A page told Cochran, “You wouldn’t want to read your mail; it’s just a bunch of crazies.”
n. When Cochran checked the web site again, she saw a question from a viewer about when she would be on the game show again. The host responded that no one knew when she would be back and that she was happily home with her new baby; he said that there was “no news” about Cochran, but that she was loved and missed. Mean­while, one month earlier, Cochran heard from other models that Greco was still referring to the models as “the six of you.”
o. Around Christmas of 2009, Greco sent Cochran a text message saying that she would call her in the new year. On January 7, 2010, after not receiving any call from Greco, Cochran called Greco, who said she would have to talk to Richards. Cochran asked what she had to talk to Richards about, and Greco said she would call her back the next week. Greco said, “We don’t know what we’re doing yet . . . I’m sorry to keep putting you off like this.”
p. Greco did not call back the next week. On February 23, 2010, Cochran called Greco. During the phone conversation, Greco told Cochran that her employment with defendants was terminated.
78. All of these actions were done against plaintiff’s will and desire and over her protests. These acts of misconduct occurred from December of 2008, when plaintiff told Kathy Greco she was pregnant, until February 23, 2010, when plaintiff’s employment with defendants was terminated. Defendants took no action to prevent the harassment of plaintiff Cochran.
79. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harass­ment of plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain damages, including losses of earnings and benefits, according to proof.
80. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harass­ment of plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
81. Defendants’ harassment was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive man­ner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
82. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are known.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation for Complaints of Harassment on the Basis of Sex/Pregnancy (Civil Code §§ 51, 51.9)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
83. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 82 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
84. As plaintiff’s employers, defendants had a business relationship with plaintiff.
85. During plaintiff’s employment with defendants, defendants engaged in actions that constituted harassment of plaintiff because of her pregnancy, as was stated above. This conduct was unwelcome to plaintiff.
86. All of these actions were done against plaintiff’s will and desire and over her protests. These acts of misconduct occurred from December of 2008, when plaintiff told Kathy Greco she was pregnant, until February 23, 2010, when plaintiff’s employment with defendants was terminated. Defendants took no action to prevent the harassment of plaintiff Cochran and retaliated against her for complaining that she was treated unfairly by terminating her employment without giving her a reason.
87. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia­tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain damages, including losses of earnings and benefits, according to proof.
88. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia­tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
89. Defendants’ retaliation was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive man­ner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
90. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are known.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Violation of FEHA—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
91. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 90 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
92. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940, et seq., was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. These statutes re­quire defendants to refrain from discriminating against any employee on the basis of her disability (including actual, perceived, history of, etc.). Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter.
93. Plaintiff Cochran was a qualified employee at the time of the termination of her employment, she performed her job in an exemplary manner, and she recently had experi­enced a pregnancy and pregnancy-related disabilities, including the death in utero of one of her twins, a three-week period of bed rest before her delivery, a premature delivery by Cæsarean section followed by a five-day hospitalization, and postpartum depression and anxiety, as well as her daughter’s serious pulmonary condition, which required a three-month hospitalization and prolonged follow-up care. Despite these conditions, plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions of her employment with defendants, with or without reasonable accommodations. Defendants refused to allow plaintiff to return to work after her pregnancy leave, then terminated her employment without giving her a reason. Defendants intentionally discriminated against plaintiff in violation of the law.
94. Defendants, through their managers and supervisors, made a number of com­ments to and about plaintiff Cochran that exhibited discriminatory motivations, inten­tions, and consciousness.
95. On the basis of the above, plaintiff believes and alleges that her disability and disability leave were motivating factors in defendants’ termination of her employment.
96. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi­nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
97. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi­nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emo­tional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
98. Defendants’ discrimination was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
99. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are fully known.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Harassment on the Basis of Disability in Violation of FEHA—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
100. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 99 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
101. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940, et seq., was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. These statutes re­quire defendants to refrain from harassing any employee on the basis of her disability (including actual, perceived, history of, etc.). Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter.
102. Plaintiff Cochran was a qualified employee at the time of the termination of her employment, she performed her job in an exemplary manner, and she recently had experi­enced a pregnancy and pregnancy-related disabilities, including the death in utero of one of her twins, a three-week period of bed rest before her delivery, a premature delivery by Cæsarean section followed by a five-day hospitalization, and postpartum depression and anxiety, as well as her daughter’s serious pulmonary condition, which required a three-month hospitalization and prolonged follow-up care. Despite these conditions, plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions of her employment with defendants, with or without reasonable accommodations. Defendants refused to allow plaintiff to return to work after her pregnancy leave, then terminated her employment without giving her a reason. Defendants intentionally discriminated against plaintiff in violation of the law.
103. Defendants, through their managers and supervisors, made a number of com­ments to and about plaintiff Cochran that exhibited discriminatory motivations, intentions, and consciousness.
104. On the basis of the above, plaintiff believes and alleges that her disability and disability leave were motivating factors in defendants’ termination of her employment.
105. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harass­ment of plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
106. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harassment of plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
107. Defendants’ harassment was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
108. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are fully known.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation for Complaints of Discrimination and Harassment on the Basis of Disability in Violation of FEHA—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
109. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 108 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
110. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940, et seq., was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. These statutes require defen­dants to refrain from retaliating against any employee for complaining of discrimination or harassment on the basis of her disability (including actual, perceived, history of, etc.). Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter.
111. Plaintiff Cochran was a qualified employee at the time of the termination of her employment, she performed her job in an exemplary manner, and she recently had experienced a pregnancy and pregnancy-related disabilities, including the death in utero of one of her twins, a three-week period of bed rest before her delivery, a premature delivery by Cæsarean section followed by a five-day hospitalization, and postpartum depression and anxiety, as well as her daughter’s serious pulmonary condition, which required a three-month hospitalization and prolonged follow-up care. Despite these conditions, plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions of her employment with defendants, with or without reasonable accommodations. Defendants refused to allow plaintiff to return to work after her pregnancy leave, then terminated her employment without giving her a reason. Defendants intentionally discriminated against plaintiff in violation of the law.
112. Defendants, through their managers and supervisors, made a number of com­ments to and about plaintiff Cochran that exhibited discriminatory motivations, inten­tions, and consciousness.
113. On the basis of the above, plaintiff believes and alleges that her disability and disability leave were motivating factors in defendants’ termination of her employment.
114. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia­tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
115. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia­tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
116. Defendants’ retaliation was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive man­ner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
117. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are fully known.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Discrimination on the Basis of Gender (Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971) 400 U.S. 542, 543)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
118. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 117 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
119. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940, was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This statute requires defendants to refrain from discriminating against any employee on the basis of her gender, among other things. Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter.
120. During plaintiff Cochran’s employment with defendants, defendants, through their supervisors, engaged in actions that had a negative impact on the treatment of female employees who became pregnant and female employees who were mothers. Specifically, defendants discharged pregnant women and women with children with greater frequency than other employees. During plaintiff’s employment with defendants, defendants intentionally engaged in gender discrimination.
121. Plaintiff Cochran was a qualified employee at the time of the termination of her employment, she performed her job in an exemplary manner, and she recently had experienced a pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications. Defendants subjected plaintiff to frequent negative comments about her pregnancy, refused to allow her to return to work after her pregnancy leave, then terminated her employment without giving her a reason. Defendants intentionally discriminated against plaintiff in violation of the law.
122. Defendants, through their managers and supervisors, made a number of com­ments to and about plaintiff Cochran that exhibited discriminatory motivations, inten­tions, and consciousness.
123. On the basis of the above, plaintiff believes and alleges that her gender was a motivating factor in defendants’ termination of her employment.
124. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi­nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
125. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi­nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emo­tional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
126. Defendants’ discrimination was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
127. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are fully known.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Harassment on the Basis of Gender (Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971) 400 U.S. 542, 543)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
128. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 127 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
129. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940, was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This statute requires defendants to refrain from harassing any employee on the basis of her gender, among other things. Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter.
130. During plaintiff Cochran’s employment with defendants, defendants, through their supervisors, engaged in actions that had a negative impact on the treatment of female employees who became pregnant and female employees who were mothers. Specifically, defendants discharged pregnant women and women with children with greater frequency than other employees. During plaintiff’s employment with defendants, defendants intentionally engaged in gender harassment.
131. Plaintiff Cochran was a qualified employee at the time of the termination of her employment, she performed her job in an exemplary manner, and she recently had experienced a pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications. Defendants subjected plaintiff to frequent negative comments about her pregnancy, refused to allow her to return to work after her pregnancy leave, then terminated her employment without giving her a reason. Defendants intentionally harassed plaintiff in violation of the law.
132. Defendants, through their managers and supervisors, made a number of com­ments to and about plaintiff Cochran that exhibited harassing motivations, intentions, and consciousness.
133. On the basis of the above, plaintiff believes and alleges that her gender was a motivating factor in defendants’ termination of her employment.
134. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harass­ment of plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
135. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harass­ment of plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
136. Defendants’ harassment was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
137. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are fully known.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation for Complaints of Discrimination and Harassment on the Basis of Gender (Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971) 400 U.S. 542, 543)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
138. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 137 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
139. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code section 12940, was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This statute requires defendants to refrain from retaliating against any employee for complaining of discrimination or harassment on the basis of her gender, among other things. Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter.
140. During plaintiff Cochran’s employment with defendants, defendants, through their supervisors, engaged in actions that had a negative impact on the treatment of female employees who became pregnant and female employees who were mothers. Specifically, defendants discharged pregnant women and women with children with greater frequency than other employees. During plaintiff’s employment with defendants, defendants intentionally engaged in gender discrimination and harassment.
141. Plaintiff Cochran was a qualified employee at the time of the termination of her employment, she performed her job in an exemplary manner, and she recently had experienced a pregnancy and pregnancy-related complications. Defendants subjected plaintiff to frequent negative comments about her pregnancy, refused to allow her to return to work after her pregnancy leave, then terminated her employment without giving her a reason. Defendants intentionally discriminated against and harassed plaintiff in violation of the law, then terminated her employment after refusing to allow her to return to work from pregnancy leave.
142. Defendants, through their managers and supervisors, made a number of com­ments to and about plaintiff Cochran that exhibited discriminatory and harassing motiva­tions, intentions, and consciousness.
143. On the basis of the above, plaintiff believes and alleges that her gender was a motivating factor in defendants’ termination of her employment.
144. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia­tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
145. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia­tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
146. Defendants’ retaliation was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppressive man­ner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
147. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are fully known.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Discriminatory Termination of Employment in Violation of CFRA (Government Code § 12945.2)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
148. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 147 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
149. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code sections 12900-12996, was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This includes Gov­ernment Code section 12945.2, which is commonly referred to as the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”). This statute requires defendants to refrain from discriminating against any employee on the basis of that employee’s need to take a leave because of pregnancy. Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter.
150. Plaintiff was pregnant, a fact of which she made defendants aware.
151. Plaintiff believes and on that basis alleges that the maternity leave she took was a factor in defendants’ termination of her employment.
152. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi­nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
153. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi­nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emo­tional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
154. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are fully known.
155. Defendants’ misconduct was done intentionally, in a malicious, despicable, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages against defendants.
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Harassing Termination of Employment in Violation of CFRA (Government Code § 12945.2)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
156. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 155 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
157. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code sections 12900-12996, was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This includes Gov­ernment Code section 12945.2, which is commonly referred to as the California Family Rights Act. This statute requires defendants to refrain from harassing any employee on the basis of that employee’s need to take a leave because of pregnancy. Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter.
158. Plaintiff was pregnant, a fact of which she made defendants aware.
159. Plaintiff believes and on that basis alleges that the maternity leave she took was a factor in defendants’ termination of her employment.
160. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harass­ment of plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
161. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional harass­ment of plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
162. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are fully known.
163. Defendants’ misconduct was done intentionally, in a malicious, despicable, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages against defendants.
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliatory Termination of Employment in Violation of CFRA (Government Code § 12945.2)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
164. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 163 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
165. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA, Government Code sections 12900-12996, was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. This includes Gov­ernment Code section 12945.2, which is commonly referred to as the California Family Rights Act. This statute requires defendants to refrain from retaliating against any employee on the basis of that employee’s need to take a leave because of pregnancy. Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH, in full compliance with administrative requirements, and received a right-to-sue letter.
166. Plaintiff was pregnant, a fact of which she made defendants aware.
167. Plaintiff believes and on that basis alleges that the maternity leave she took was a factor in defendants’ termination of her employment.
168. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia­tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
169. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional retalia­tion against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
170. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are fully known.
171. Defendants’ misconduct was done intentionally, in a malicious, despicable, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages against defendants.
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Paramour Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
172. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 171 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
173. At all times herein mentioned, FEHA was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. These statutes require defendants to refrain from discriminating against, harassing, or retaliating against any employee on the basis of sex or gender. Within the time provided by law, plaintiff filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the DFEH, in full compliance with administra­tive requirements, and received right-to-sue letters.
174. During plaintiff’s employment, defendants, through their employees, engaged in actions that constituted sexual discrimination against and harassment of plaintiff Cochran. All of these actions were done against plaintiff’s will and desire and over her protests. These acts of misconduct occurred from December of 2008 through February 23, 2010.
175. The specific acts of which plaintiff complains are as follows:
a. One of defendants’ executive producers showed favoritism to a model em­ployed by defendants with whom he had a personal relationship. The producer is mar­ried. The two flirted openly, spent increasing amounts of time together outside work, and e‑mailed and text-messaged each other often. Other employees commented on their apparent attraction.
b. The model received favorable treatment compared to defendants’ other em­ployees, e.g., she had her skirt lengths adjusted after she complained that they were too long, and she was sometimes booked as a fourth model when defendants’ TV show usu­ally used only three models at a time.
c. The executive producer said a number of times that he had nothing to do with the models’ schedules, but the model to whom he admitted being attracted got more work than any of the others.
d. When the model took two months off because she had gotten a job on an­other TV show, another model asked if the executive producer planned to replace her, and he said he would not.
176. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional sexual harassment of plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
177. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional sexual harassment of plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emo­tional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
178. Defendants’ sexual harassment was done intentionally, in a malicious, oppres­sive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
179. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are known.
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Wrongful Termination of Employment and Demotion in Violation of Public Policy on the Basis of Pregnancy Discrimination (California Constitution, Article I, § 8)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
180. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 179 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
181. At all times herein mentioned, the California Constitution, Article I, section 8, was in full force and effect and was binding on defendants. Among its other provisions, the Constitution bans sex discrimination, which includes pregnancy discrimination.
182. During plaintiff Cochran’s employment with defendants, defendants, through their supervisors, engaged in actions that had a negative impact on the treatment of pregnant women.
183. Plaintiff Cochran was a qualified employee at the time of the termination of her employment, she performed her job in an exemplary manner, and she recently had experienced a pregnancy. Defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment without giving any reason. Defendants intentionally discriminated against plaintiff in violation of the law banning discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.
184. Defendants, through their managers and supervisors, made a number of comments to and about plaintiff Cochran that exhibited discriminatory motivations, intentions, and consciousness.
185. On the basis of the above, plaintiff believes and alleges that her pregnancy was a motivating factor in defendants’ termination of her employment when she attempted to return to work from her pregnancy leave.
186. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi­nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits.
187. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful, knowing, and intentional discrimi­nation against plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emo­tional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
188. Defendants’ wrongful termination of plaintiff’s employment was done inten­tionally, in a malicious, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
189. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff is at present unaware of the precise amounts of these expenses and fees and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint when the amounts are fully known.
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Implied-in-Fact and/or Oral Contract Not to Terminate Employment Without Good Cause—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
190. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 189 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
191. On the basis of oral assurances of continued employed given to plaintiff by defendants’ supervisors, the length of plaintiff’s employment with defendants, defen­dants’ actual practice of terminating employment only for cause, and the industry stan­dard for the business defendants engage in of terminating employment only for cause, plaintiff and defendants shared the actual understanding that plaintiff’s employment could and would be terminated only for cause. This shared understanding resulted in an implied contract and/or an oral contract requiring that defendants have good cause to terminate plaintiff’s employment.
192. Defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment without good cause, violating the implied-in-fact and oral contracts they entered with her.
193. As a proximate result of defendants’ willful breach of the contracts not to ter­minate employment without good cause, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including losses of earnings and benefits, in a sum according to proof.
NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
194. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 193 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
195. Defendants owed a duty of care to plaintiff to hire managers and employees who would refrain from discriminating against and harassing plaintiff. Defendants breached that duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in hiring people who either supervised or worked with plaintiff. Defendants directly and proximately caused dam­ages to plaintiff in that they negligently, wantonly, recklessly, tortiously, and unlawfully hired managers and employees who discriminated against and harassed plaintiff during the course of her employment.
196. Defendants also owed a duty of care to plaintiff not to retain employees who would discriminate against and harass plaintiff after defendants had obtained actual and/or constructive knowledge of such practices by those employees. Defendants breached that duty by retaining such employees and/or failing to discharge them after they had learned of their discriminatory and harassing practices against plaintiff, as alleged in this Complaint. Defendants proximately caused damages to plaintiff in that they negligently, wantonly, recklessly, tortiously, and unlawfully retained and failed to discharge, reprimand, or take disciplinary action against their managers and employees after defendants had obtained actual and/or constructive notice of the discrimination against and harassment of plaintiff, as alleged in this Complaint.
197. Defendants further owed a duty of care to plaintiff to train and supervise their managers and employees to prevent them from discriminating against and harassing plaintiff. Defendants had this duty especially after they had obtained actual and/or con­structive knowledge of their employees’ discriminatory and harassing practices against plaintiff. Defendants breached that duty by failing to train and/or supervise their employees properly. Defendants proximately caused damage to plaintiff in that they negligently, wantonly, recklessly, tortiously, and unlawfully trained and/or supervised their employees before and after they had obtained actual and/or constructive knowledge of their discriminatory and harassing practices.
198. As a proximate result of defendants’ negligent hiring and retention of employ­ees who discriminated against and harassed plaintiff and their failure to train and super­vise their employees to prevent such discrimination and harassment, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages, including losses of earnings and benefits, in a sum according to proof.
199. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys’ fees in a sum according to proof.
200. Defendants’ misconduct was done intentionally, in a malicious, despicable, oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages against defendants.
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Against All Defendants)
201. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 200 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
202. Defendants’ discriminatory, retaliatory, and harassing actions against plaintiff Cochran during her pregnancy and her attempts to return from maternity leave consti­tuted severe and outrageous misconduct and caused plaintiff extreme emotional distress.
203. Defendants had the intention of causing and/or recklessly disregarded the prob­ability of causing emotional distress to plaintiff and did, in fact, cause emotional distress to plaintiff. Defendants’ misconduct caused plaintiff severe emotional distress, includ­ing, but not limited to, depression and anxiety.
204. As a proximate result of defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress. Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain substantial losses of earnings and other employment benefits as a result of being emotionally distressed.
205. As a proximate result of defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, all to her damage in a sum according to proof.
206. Defendants’ misconduct was done intentionally, in a malicious and oppressive manner, entitling plaintiff to punitive damages.
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Misappropriation of Image/Likeness (Lugosi v. Universal Pictures (1979) 25 Cal.3d 813)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
207. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 206 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
208. Over an unknown period, defendants invaded plaintiff’s right to privacy by appropriating plaintiff’s likeness by publishing and commercially distributing plaintiff Cochran’s image on DVDs, video games, cell phone applications, and a DirecTV adver­tisement, without ever compensating her for it.
209. The appropriation of plaintiff’s likeness was unauthorized and without her consent.
210. Defendants’ conduct involved the appropriation of plaintiff’s likeness, specifically, photographs of plaintiff, and plaintiff is readily identifiable in that any per­son viewing the photographs with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted is plaintiff. Plaintiff’s face is clearly visible and distinguishable in the photographs, which defendants have used on DVDs, video games, cell phone applica­tions, and a DirecTV advertisement.
211. The appropriation of plaintiff’s likeness was to defendants’ advantage in that defendants made pecuniary gains and profits from using plaintiff’s image.
212. As a proximate result of the above disclosures, plaintiff suffered loss of reputa­tion and standing in the community, all of which caused her embarrassment and hurt feelings, to her general damage in an amount according to proof.
213. As a further proximate result of the above-mentioned disclosures, plaintiff suffered special damages in an amount according to proof.
214. In making the disclosures described above, defendants are guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice in that they made the disclosures with the intent to vex, injure, or annoy plaintiff or with a willful and conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff therefore seeks an award of punitive damages.
TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Right to Privacy (Civil Code § 3344)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
215. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 214 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
216. Over an unknown period, defendants, knowingly and without plaintiff’s con­sent, invaded plaintiff’s right to privacy by appropriating plaintiff’s likeness by publish­ing and commercially distributing plaintiff Cochran’s image on DVDs, video games, cell phone applications, and a DirecTV advertisement, without ever compensating her for it. This has occurred on a continuous basis.
217. The appropriation of plaintiff’s likeness was unauthorized and without her prior consent.
218. Defendants’ conduct involved the appropriation of plaintiff’s likeness and image.
219. Defendants’ conduct involved the appropriation of photographs of plaintiff, and plaintiff is readily identifiable in these photographs in that any person viewing them with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted is plaintiff. Plaintiff’s face is clearly visible and distinguishable in the photographs, which defendants have used on DVDs, video games, cell phone applications, and a DirecTV advertisement.
220. Defendants’ appropriation of plaintiff’s likeness was for the purpose of adver­tising and soliciting purchases of their products, merchandise, goods, or services, specifi­cally including promotion of their TV game show on which plaintiff appeared.
221. As a proximate result of the above disclosures, plaintiff suffered loss of reputa­tion and standing in the community, all of which caused her humiliation and embarrass­ment, to her general damage in an amount according to proof.
222. As a further proximate result of the above-mentioned disclosures, plaintiff suffered special damages in an amount according to proof.
223. In making the disclosures described above, defendants were guilty of oppres­sion, fraud, or malice in that they made the disclosures with the intent to vex, injure, or annoy plaintiff and/or with a willful and conscious disregard of plaintiff’s rights. Plain­tiff therefore seeks an award of punitive damages.
TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud (Civil Code § 1710)—Against Defendants CBS, CBS TV, Fremantle Ltd., Fremantle N.A., The Price Is Right, and RTL)
224. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 223 are re-alleged and incor­porated herein by reference.
225. Defendants represented to plaintiff that they wanted to use photographs of her for general publicity purposes.
226. Defendants’ representations were, in fact, false. The facts were that defendants intended to use photographs of plaintiff repeatedly in many contexts, including DVDs, video games, cell phone applications, and a DirecTV advertisement. Defendants never compensated plaintiff for the use of these photos.
227. When defendants made the representations, they knew them to be false, and they made them with the intent to defraud and deceive plaintiff and to induce plaintiff to allow them to photograph her.
228. At the time the representations were made, plaintiff was ignorant of their falsity and believed them to be true. Plaintiff was induced to allow defendants to photograph her on the basis of their misrepresentations and in reliance upon defendants’ misrepre­sentations.
229. As a proximate result of defendants’ false representations, plaintiff has been damaged in a sum according to proof.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Brandi Cochran, prays for judgment against defendants as follows:
1. For general and special damages according to proof;
2. For exemplary damages according to proof;
3. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all damages awarded;
4. For reasonable attorneys’ fees;
5. For costs of suit incurred;
6. For injunctive relief preventing defendants from engaging in the above-described conduct; and
7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
ADDITIONALLY, plaintiff, Brandi Cochran, demands trial of this matter by jury.
Dated: March 23, 2016 SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
BRANDI COCHRAN